Slashdot Mirror
UK Pressures the US To Takedown Extremist Videos
chrb writes "BBC News and the Telegraph are reporting that the British government has pressured the US government to take down privately hosted extremist web sites and videos, particularly on YouTube. The request follows the conviction of a 21-year-old woman who attempted to murder MP Stephen Timms after watching YouTube videos of radical American Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. YouTube hosts more than 5,000 videos featuring al-Awlaki, but has begun to remove them following the British government's complaints. The issue obviously raises First Amendment issues in the US, but Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones has said 'Those websites would categorically not be allowed in the UK. They incite cold-blooded murder and as such are surely contrary to the public good. If they were hosted in the UK then we would take them down but this is a global problem. Many of these websites are hosted in America and we look forward to working even more closely with you to take down this hateful material.'"
This will be a nonstarter. The US government isn't going to start attacking "hate websites" or otherwise poop on the first amendment. Companies like Youtube will certainly comply with the British government. Net result: such content won't be on the most popular avenues of the net, but it'll still be out there for those who are "interested" in such things. So you and I won't be able to browse to it on google video, but it'll be hosted on, I dunno, hatetube or something.
We are not the UK anymore.
If the enemy is willing to tell you their plans, pay attention.
How it works in the US is,
You find someone with deep pockets associated with the video and sue the hell out of them. Repeat until everyone takes down the video/article/link.
The government can't suppress speech but businesses do it all the time.
I'm sure it's legal free speech. And who ever uploaded it could probably be fined for something. And You Tube could definitely be sued for hosting it after it was a known danger (probably before). Might not win, but they would likely fold under mild pressure for something repugnant like this.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Not one to cast stones, but I'd say the US gov fears freedom too.
Life is not for the lazy.
The First Amendment issues are obvious here, but I have to say, we relegare ourselves to a pack of dumb animals if we make the point that watching something or reading something or playing violent video games means we're going to freak out and imitate or otherwise follow the directions of anything contained within.
We are not three year olds. We can watch hateful, obscene, or otherwise nasty crap and we can make the decision not to be a bunch of zombies about it. Unless and until we insist that people think for themselves and be responsible for their actions, (and law should mandate it - meaning, you can't use "I watched a bunch of nasty stuff and it influenced me therefore the crime I committed isn't my fault" argument) we condemn ourselves to a kind of tyranny where government is the adult who steps in and treats us like impressionable toddlers. Freedom is contingent upon critical thinking and personal responsibility, and I am not willing to accept shackles because there are a smattering of idiots among us who are incapable of it.
The logic that we have to stop thoughtcrime because it might spread or influence people is chilling.
The United States needs to ignore the UK's demand, and the UK, if it insists, can certainly petition google to take action on this.
But unless we rely on the idea that free people in a free society can think critically, why not just invite the government into our lives completely? Why even have a free society, if we're really just animals, a few videos away from going on some kind of horrible killing spree? Why go through the pretense of insisting that human beings are capable, through independent thought and taking responsibility for their actions, of liberty?
The "categorically not allowed in the UK" bit could not, as an American, concern me less -- and should the United States attempt the same kind of argument with the UK in the future, the UK can and should ignore the United States's demands to infringe the right of people to say and read/watch what they like.
The alternative, where the government makes this decision that there's just stuff we can't watch, is scary.
Actually, it's the British who should dump a bunch of Youtube videos into the Thames. This time, they're the ones being forced to consume stuff they don't want by an overbearing empire. ^_^
The British government is pressuring the government and private entities. Some private entitites may cave, but that doesn't mean the US government is going to do anything those that don't.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
If the UK doesn't want it, they can put up a firewall. Like China.
David Cameron (UK prime minister) has let all the rhetoric go to his head. He actually believes it when the US politicians pat him on the head and tell him that the UK and USA do indeed have a special relationship. Wake up, any balance of power between the USA and UK finished sometime before World War 2, over 70 years ago. The "special relationship" deal is that the USA expects the UK to give their requests special treatment (collude in "special renditions", help out on a war, that kind of thing), but don't expect anything in return beyond maybe the occasional tour of the White House and a signed photo from the president.
Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.
Urges you mean, article title is a troll
It's a widespread misbelief that the terrorists hate us for our freedom. They don't. They hate us for *political* reasons. Using them against the Russians, invading their countries and so on.
Internet Watch Foundation?
You're an immobile computer, remember?
All governments have a love-hate relationship with freedom. Human livestock is more productive the more freedom you give it, but at the same time with more freedom comes more recognition that the farmers aren't necessary.
Ideally governments want to give their livestock just enough freedom to maximize profits and no more.
We're sorry. We are really trying to get them to stop, but they're just NOT LISTENING.
- U.K. Anonymous Coward
The proper response to what happened to him is to lock up the "nutter", as you crazy Brits say. Trying to block access to the material said nutter watched before doing something stupid is shifting the blame. The person did something stupid because they're crazy. Saying that "the video made them do it" is removing personal responsibility. Someone is crazy enough to think they can stab an MP in broad daylight? They go to jail.
This is the sort of thing that gets on my nerves. I am all for defending freedoms, but freedom must be exercised responsibly.
This is a case where a Member of Parliament -- roughly the counterpart of your Representatives in the US -- was attacked and nearly died, while performing his fundamental constitutional duty to meet a member of his constituency supposedly to hear her concerns. Your President walks around protected by the most high profile private army in the world because of that sort of threat, and the danger it poses to the effective functioning of government.
There is nothing responsible about such attacks, nor about advocating them. At some point, the MP's right to do his job safely outweighs someone else's right to freely advocate harming him, and if you get to the point where someone is getting stabbed then you have gone waaaaay over that line.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Fool. The USA isn't going to listen to any UK request any more than the USA expects the UK to refuse any request from them. They'll shout "1776" and "tea party" and ignore whatever is said next.
You're an idiot. The US cannot agree to a UK request that categorically violates the US Constitution. Britain should know better than to ask for such an idiotic thing in the first place.
It's like requesting that the US make Catholicism the official national religion. It's never going to happen, not for any religion (such a thing would violate the Constitution), and it is bizarre to even ask.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Very nicely thank you, I enjoy my vastly lower probability of being shot to death.
turn into pressures?
Oh I get it, just more hyperbole that's guaranteed to get the colonial rebels frothing at the mouth? ;)
Unfortunately, your approach allows some very nasty people to literally get away with murder. All they have to do is make sure someone else pulls the trigger and let them take the fall. I don't think such a simplistic approach is compatible with justice in any useful sense of the term.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
It's not as one sided as some in the US like to make out - we have had periods of mutual benefit. The fact that we have land here for US air force bases, for example. Or the trade of custom reactor designs for our subs in exchange for acoustic silencing tech that the US didn't have.
The UK may be a physically small country, but it holds a disproportionate amount of power in the EU for its population which makes it politically very potent.
Only the properly ignorant think this is about who has the biggest army or other nonsensical bravado.
And yes, during WW2 we were economically crippled and relied on convoys from the US. It may have had something to do with being bombed continually by an enemy force and surrounded by submarines. Prior to WW2, the UK was coming off the back of one of its biggest periods of trade and industry - we were the workshop of the world for a long time, despite our diminutive land area.
Reasonable in that these videos (and, yes, I went out and looked at a couple, I'm not going to say where), have no redeeming social value. They're strictly (a) war propaganda (b) pure hate speech and (c) active statements of intent to commit violence.
War propaganda and active statements of intent to commit violence *do* have societal value. Have you forgotten that our country was founded by revolutionaries?
The value of hate speech is less obvious, but it's still clearly covered by the first amendment.
That said, your analysis of the likely outcome is probably correct.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What a stupid statement. They hate us because we station troops on their holy land. They hate us because we interfere with their government. They hate us because we fight made up wars that kill thousands of civilians.
You were probably joking, but I know some people actually still think they hate us because we are free. And it is just so simplistic and dumb. I'd probably not be irritated if you were modded funny instead of Interesting.
Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
(a) This is not a black-and-white issue, but the idea that people are completely immune to any external influence and therefore those who attempt to cause results indirectly should not be held at all responsible is crazy to me. Just ask advertisers.
(b) This very nearly was a murder. The MP concerned was seriously injured.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Well, no actually. You're assuming that British people study the US constitution - they don't. Secondly, it is up to the American people to determine how to interpret the US constitution. There is nothing idiotic about that.
If a friend and ally makes a request, you can certainly consider it (before you say no). Constitution or not, quite possibly the specific videos in question might infringe some law or regulation, so there could be reasons to take down these videos if you look hard enough.
I haven't watched these videos, but there is practically no such thing as "treasonous speech." At least not of the sort I suspect you're thinking. Speech that conveys military secrets, yes, that is treason. Speech that says "America is evil and worthy of death" is not, and you are probably sooner going to wander from that kind of stuff over the line into crimes of inciting violence than into crimes of treason. You basically have to actually help someone conduct war or gain military advantage against the United States to be guilty of treason. "Aid and Comfort" are regularly misunderstood to mean something like "words that inspire courage," when they mean nothing of the sort. It is particularly hopelessly off the mark when people think it applies to people who criticize U.S. policy, saying it causes enemies to take heart and therefore indirectly gives them comfort and therefore is treason. This is not what this phrase means at all. Treason requires material support or the equivalent. If you give food and shelter to the enemy, that is aid and comfort. If you go visit their training schools and give lectures on military tactics, that is aid and comfort. This piece of the Constitution was written to purposely limit treason to a very small category, because the writers knew that an abusable definition of treason is one of the most dangerous and hard-to-stop powers a government can have.
It wasn't a "him", it was a "her" that stabbed the Member of Parliament. She did it to be a martyr [sic] for islam. This idea was promoted by some American muslim cleric. It seems America can't control those who wish her harm, or wish to harm anyone else by proxy. I suspect this is the usual "political correctness gone mad". America - please sort yourself out - even if the terrorist wishing you harm holds a U.S. passport, they still are a terrorist, the trappings of religion make no difference. Can we compare & contrast the attitude towards this terrorist cleric to the attitude (who happens to reside in the USA) to the treatment the USA has meted out to Gary McKinnon? He's not stabbed anyone, or urged anyone to do the same, but it's not stopped the US security forces baying for his hide. The difference? He's not American.
I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but you could say the same thing about a lot of Christian fundamentalists (and more in certain times in the past).
The key phrase there is "in the past". Judaism is the oldest of the desert religions, Christianity is a bit younger. They both went through their adolescent hissy fits and used brute force to spread themselves in their day, but eventually they settled down and became pretty docile.
Islam, on the other hand, is the youngest of the three and it's still in the middle of its troubled adolescent years. It still has an inferiority complex and gets very emotional when it's insulted, usually reacting violently. (Danish newspaper cartoons, anyone?)
The danger is that Islam is going through these growing pains in an age when one no longer needs the resources of an army or a king to cause large scale loss of life. This is particularly alarming in the nuclear age.
Also, just like a lot of the "Bible quotes" by some Christian fundamentalists,
isn't this one of the many things argued to be a mis-translation?
Could be. Either way it's irrelevant. People read what they want to into scripture. People who are brought up to hate the west (a hatred which seems to be a core subject along with reading, writing and arithmetic in some parts of the world) are going to seize on that and use it as justification for their Jihadist stance no matter how inaccurate the scholarship is.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
news flash people:
Google isn't congress. (yet)
The 1st amendment doesn't apply. Google can censor whatever it wants on its properties.
To be fair to you, I clicked on your link to jackandjillpolitics.com with an open mind. While I am not a big Glenn Beck fan, I support his right to free speech and his right to do what he believes is right. When I saw the Media Matters logo flash, at the start of the video, I immediately knew just how fucking full of shit you are. I mean, I really wanted to believe you were either trying to be funny(which you obviously were not) or that you were trying to make a more intelligent point(which, again, you obviously were not).
First off, you need to go fuck yourself with this blind hatred of Fox News, New Corp, and the other organizations that fall under that umbrella. If you are going to go down this road, then how about we talk about CNN, MSNBC, NBC, fucking CBS, fuck, this list can go on and on. Hell, Media Matters is one of the worst offenders, when it goes to bad journalism and commentary. Instead of celebrating people's right to free speech and denouncing people who use horseshit excuses(such as blaming Glenn Beck) to qualify their despicable actions, you do the complete opposite.
While I am guessing that this will only get me hit with a negative five for either Trolling, or some other horseshit label, I refuse to allow you to go unchecked with your severe level of seething hate and massive level of fucking retarded.
Hell, you even had that wacko Byron Williams admit that Glenn Beck was not advocating violence, or anything of the kind. There is nothing wrong with standing up to bad government workers and politicians by voting out the bad politicians and complaining about bad government workers who are violating standard policy and/or the law. Only idiots would stand by and watch as their country and/or government goes down in flames and do nothing to fight to correct it. Of course, I am talking about through legal means, not grabbing your firearms and body armor, then heading out to kill people.
If another nation starts invading the United States, then yeah, grab your guns and body armor. Otherwise, get involved in the political system and change what you can.
You cannot have perfectly objective, hard and fast rules for everything.
In this instance, you can: Nothing is outlawed because it is "obscene". If you don't like something, don't look at it. If someone is forcing you to watch, that's different - but the availability of something shouldn't be denied because some people don't like it. (Note: that works for drugs too)
Ayjay on Fedang
Glenn Greenwald explains it better than I can, so I'll just quote him:
"It's truly astounding to watch us -- for a full decade -- send fighter jets and drones and bombs and invading forces and teams of torturers and kidnappers to that part of the world, or, as we were doing long before 9/11, to overthrow their governments, prop up their dictators, occupy what they perceive as holy land with our foreign troops, and arm Israel to the teeth, and then act surprised and confused when some of them want to attack us. In general, the U.S. only attacks countries with no capabilities to attack us back in the "homeland" -- at least not with conventional forces. As a result, we have come to believe that any forms of violence we perpetrate on them over there is justifiable and natural, but the Laws of Humanity are instantly breached in the most egregious ways whenever they bring violence back to the U.S., aimed at Americans. It's just impossible to listen to discussions grounded in this warped mentality without being astounded at how irrational it is. What do Americans think is going to happen if we continue to engage in this conduct, in this always-widening "war"?
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/07/terrorism
They hate us because we occupy their lands, kill their families, torture them, lock them up with no chance of ever getting out, and prop up other regimes that do the same. "Our freedoms" are far, far down on the list.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The US -has- ignored the constitution in recent memory, and got away with it. So clearly they can again. The US gov only listens to money, not the UK. Catholic isn't likely to become a state religion, it's not Protestant. However the Republicans would certainly vote for a state religion if they had the chance. If they can openly support creationist nonsense (intelligent design) and prayers in school then i'd not put official state religion past them.
Atheists don't kill in the name of... well, nothing. There has never been a war to un-convert people.
Give it time. Atheism has only gained a large number of adherents within the past few decades. It took christianity ~1,300 years to get as far as the crusades and atheism has already made a start down that road.
War propaganda and active statements of intent to commit violence *do* have societal value. Have you forgotten that our country was founded by revolutionaries?
Er, the British would have been quite within their rights to string up anyone who actually advocated violent physical revolution against them.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it